Jumping to Concussions in a Rush to Judgement

[Rocky]

5 hours ago, Mike said:

The Dodger is probably what Rocky was latching onto, trying to apply the video to me.

The entire post/comment from which this excerpt was taken appears to be classic projection AND an exquisite example of how the author of said excerpt fails/declines to demonstrate a certain property of legitimate credibility and/or leadership.

[Charity]

34 minutes ago, Rocky said:

The entire post/comment from which this excerpt was taken appears to be classic projection AND an exquisite example of how the author of said excerpt fails/declines to demonstrate a certain property of legitimate credibility and/or leadership.

I think Mike might have given up on me since I've become a "wrangler" in his mind.  This could be a , a

,  a or just plain sad for which I could use a (and a hot chocolate)!

Edited January 9, 2023 by Charity

[Rocky]

6 hours ago, Mike said:

I dodge the entire debate at times, like Raf's thread "Actual Errors in PFAL..." because I disagree with the premise and methods of the debaters.  Dodging the entire debate can be a totally honest move.

Intriguing acknowledgment. That you approach your role as a GSC parasite as valid at all seems to miss the entire point.

To put a stop to your wheel spinning and emulation of Sisyphus, you could possibly change your mission from debate to simply a declaration of your beliefs and leave it at that. The bottom line fact of the matter is you are not more right/correct than anyone else in life or on GSC. THIS is the essence of your two+ decades as a GSC parasite.

IF you approach your role in terms of "I" statements (i.e. this is what I believe) you might just be less of a nuisance overall.

Nobody really can argue/bicker or debate what you say you believe. Yet when you frame it as this is absolute truth, people can ONLY "debate" you.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Rocky
It's easier to self-edit after posting than before hitting the post button.

[Mike]

55 minutes ago, Charity said:

I think Mike might have given up on me since I've become a "wrangler" in his mind.  This could be a , a

,  a or just plain sad for which I could use a (and a hot chocolate)!

No, I didn't give up on you, but I did give up on trying to figure out all the details of your long post, and who said what to whom.  It's too complicated to figure out, but I am sorry if I misread you.  That happens here a lot.

I made a comment on the video above, and I am done with it.

I'd rather go back to discussing the important things, like the Great Principle. I just got started bringing in the original class transcripts and book passages on that topic. 

People have been relying on faulty memory for too long on a lot of these topics.

It is the case that I did not understand the Great Principle (GP) for years, but then slowly hunched out an understanding of it in recent decades. 

It is obvious that no one here EVER understood the GP at all while in TWI, and everyone here was Corps, just about.   I would bet money no one cared that they did not understand it back then, and that no one started a paper (or digital) folder on the GP to try and figure it out.  I did all that, and I want to present what I found.  It is new knowledge for you all.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Mike

[Rocky]

23 minutes ago, Mike said:

I'd rather go back to discussing the important things, like the Great Principle.

Who is preventing you from doing so? (rhetorical question)

[Mike]

 

The Great  Principle (GP) has several forms.

One is a positive form where God teaches.

The others have a negative form where “God cannot…”  or “God can only…”

This is one of them:
"God can only give that which He is, which is Spirit."

That bugged me for SO long.

But eventually I got this idea of saying, ok, let’s assume the GP does NOT hold true, and see what happens.  That would “allow” God to give that which He is not, which is physical, to us.

But wouldn’t that be God merely manipulating somethings or events in the physical, and not really a gift FROM the Almighty Himself?? 

Think of the gifts the Maji brought to baby Jesus: gifts from the Maji that came with them from Maji-land. 

A truly REAL gift from God would come from heaven, and would have God’s fingerprints on it, spiritually.  ...or God’s DNA in it.  

That is the imagery I got eventually from this form of the GP.

A physical gift from God simply pales in comparison to a spiritual gift from God.

*/*/*/*/*/*/*

This form of the GP, in raw attention getting form, is:
"God can only give that which He is, which is Spirit."

In explained form it becomes:
"God can only REALLY give that which He is, which is Spirit."

 

 

[Charity]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

No, I didn't give up on you, but I did give up on trying to figure out all the details of your long post, and who said what to whom.  It's too complicated to figure out, but I am sorry if I misread you.  That happens here a lot.

 

 

Mike, blame me all you want for not reading my "long posts" (like yours are always short.)  I did use footnotes to keep my latest one short and to the point and even said you could ignore them if you wanted.  As to "who said what to whom," I told you in one post that I put my words in italics and the next time I used "You wrote" and "I wrote."  I'm sorry if all these three aids were too complicated for you to follow. 

Based on your last two posts to me, I believe you just didn't want to read or think about my post about Christ.  As you said, you prefer discussing "more important things" like the Great Principle.  No problem, I'm willing to move on too. 

 

[OldSkool]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

 

 

 

The Great  Principle (GP) has several forms.

 

 

One is a positive form where God teaches.

 

 

The others have a negative form where “God cannot…”  or “God can only…”

 

 

This is one of them:
"God can only give that which He is, which is Spirit."

 

 

That bugged me for SO long.

 

 

But eventually I got this idea of saying, ok, let’s assume the GP does NOT hold true, and see what happens.  That would “allow” God to give that which He is not, which is physical, to us.

 

 

But wouldn’t that be God merely manipulating somethings or events in the physical, and not really a gift FROM the Almighty Himself?? 

 

 

Think of the gifts the Maji brought to baby Jesus: gifts from the Maji that came with them from Maji-land. 

 

 

A truly REAL gift from God would come from heaven, and would have God’s fingerprints on it, spiritually.  ...or God’s DNA in it.  

 

 

That is the imagery I got eventually from this form of the GP.

 

 

A physical gift from God simply pales in comparison to a spiritual gift from God.

 

*/*/*/*/*/*/*

 

This form of the GP, in raw attention getting form, is:
"God can only give that which He is, which is Spirit."

 

 

In explained form it becomes:
"God can only REALLY give that which He is, which is Spirit."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vain babblings...

[So_crates]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

 

 

 

The Great  Principle (GP) has several forms.

 

 

One is a positive form where God teaches.

 

 

The others have a negative form where “God cannot…”  or “God can only…”

 

 

This is one of them:
"God can only give that which He is, which is Spirit."

 

 

That bugged me for SO long.

 

 

But eventually I got this idea of saying, ok, let’s assume the GP does NOT hold true, and see what happens.  That would “allow” God to give that which He is not, which is physical, to us.

 

 

But wouldn’t that be God merely manipulating somethings or events in the physical, and not really a gift FROM the Almighty Himself?? 

 

 

Think of the gifts the Maji brought to baby Jesus: gifts from the Maji that came with them from Maji-land. 

 

 

A truly REAL gift from God would come from heaven, and would have God’s fingerprints on it, spiritually.  ...or God’s DNA in it.  

 

 

That is the imagery I got eventually from this form of the GP.

 

 

A physical gift from God simply pales in comparison to a spiritual gift from God.

 

*/*/*/*/*/*/*

 

This form of the GP, in raw attention getting form, is:
"God can only give that which He is, which is Spirit."

 

 

In explained form it becomes:
"God can only REALLY give that which He is, which is Spirit."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, the thrust of any ministry is the deliverance of God's people.

Why is it, rather than focusing on things that would deliver God's people, you choose to argue about doctrine? Will doctrine deliver God's people?

I see the same problem with the The Way, all the wanted to teach was dogma, not how to believe greater or what's required to be healed by God.

But, I understand. It's in the gospels. Before Christ would heal anyone he would make sure all the HSs and hss were marked in their bible. As were all the ds and ls. And God forbid you forget one occurance of also.

[waysider]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

The Great  Principle (GP) has several forms.

 

 

One is a positive form where God teaches.

 

 

The others have a negative form where “God cannot…”  or “God can only…”

 

 

This is one of them:
"God can only give that which He is, which is Spirit."

 

 

That bugged me for SO long.

 

 

But eventually I got this idea of saying, ok, let’s assume the GP does NOT hold true, and see what happens.  That would “allow” God to give that which He is not, which is physical, to us.

 

 

But wouldn’t that be God merely manipulating somethings or events in the physical, and not really a gift FROM the Almighty Himself?? 

 

 

Think of the gifts the Maji brought to baby Jesus: gifts from the Maji that came with them from Maji-land. 

 

 

A truly REAL gift from God would come from heaven, and would have God’s fingerprints on it, spiritually.  ...or God’s DNA in it.  

 

 

That is the imagery I got eventually from this form of the GP.

 

 

A physical gift from God simply pales in comparison to a spiritual gift from God.

 

*/*/*/*/*/*/*

 

This form of the GP, in raw attention getting form, is:
"God can only give that which He is, which is Spirit."

 

 

In explained form it becomes:
"God can only REALLY give that which He is, which is Spirit."

[So_crates]

3 hours ago, Mike said:

 

 

 

The Great  Principle (GP) has several forms.

 

 

One is a positive form where God teaches.

 

 

The others have a negative form where “God cannot…”  or “God can only…”

 

 

This is one of them:
"God can only give that which He is, which is Spirit."

 

 

That bugged me for SO long.

 

 

But eventually I got this idea of saying, ok, let’s assume the GP does NOT hold true, and see what happens.  That would “allow” God to give that which He is not, which is physical, to us.

 

 

But wouldn’t that be God merely manipulating somethings or events in the physical, and not really a gift FROM the Almighty Himself?? 

 

 

Think of the gifts the Maji brought to baby Jesus: gifts from the Maji that came with them from Maji-land. 

 

 

A truly REAL gift from God would come from heaven, and would have God’s fingerprints on it, spiritually.  ...or God’s DNA in it.  

 

 

That is the imagery I got eventually from this form of the GP.

 

 

A physical gift from God simply pales in comparison to a spiritual gift from God.

 

*/*/*/*/*/*/*

 

This form of the GP, in raw attention getting form, is:
"God can only give that which He is, which is Spirit."

 

 

In explained form it becomes:
"God can only REALLY give that which He is, which is Spirit."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chockfull]

3 hours ago, Mike said:

The Great  Principle (GP) has several forms.

One is a positive form where God teaches.

The others have a negative form where “God cannot…”  or “God can only…”

This is one of them:
"God can only give that which He is, which is Spirit."

That bugged me for SO long.

But eventually I got this idea of saying, ok, let’s assume the GP does NOT hold true, and see what happens.  That would “allow” God to give that which He is not, which is physical, to us.

But wouldn’t that be God merely manipulating somethings or events in the physical, and not really a gift FROM the Almighty Himself?? 

Think of the gifts the Maji brought to baby Jesus: gifts from the Maji that came with them from Maji-land. 

A truly REAL gift from God would come from heaven, and would have God’s fingerprints on it, spiritually.  ...or God’s DNA in it.  

That is the imagery I got eventually from this form of the GP.

A physical gift from God simply pales in comparison to a spiritual gift from God.

*/*/*/*/*/*/*

This form of the GP, in raw attention getting form, is:
"God can only give that which He is, which is Spirit."

In explained form it becomes:
"God can only REALLY give that which He is, which is Spirit."

Forms are important for idols.  If you didn’t have them how would the metal be held in place to make a picture of The Teacher or The Teachings?

If you have more than one form, you can make multiple idols of the same Teacher just from a different angle.

These forms are great.  Just like in an art gallery you can stare at them for hours trying to detect some hidden inner meaning.

[Rocky]

1 hour ago, So_crates said:

Why is it, rather than focusing on things that would deliver God's people, you choose to argue about doctrine? Will doctrine deliver God's people?

Perhaps because TWI's corporate culture has ALWAYS been about proclaiming that they are RIGHT. Mistletoe Mike, of course, for more than two decades now has consistently demonstrated more concern with being RIGHT than he is about LIVING the two greatest commandments?

[Rocky]

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

 

Anybody remember the joke Victor told when sharing these two verses? Was that in the PFLAP class?

Something about hanging the Prophets?

Edited January 10, 2023 by Rocky

[Mike]

 

The Great Principle pops up in many places in the film class, and several places in the books.

But the phrase "absent Christ" occurs only once in the film class, and only once in the book.

 

[OldSkool]

14 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

The Great Principle pops up in many places in the film class, and several places in the books.

But the phrase "absent Christ" occurs only once in the film class, and only once in the book.

 

And they are both lies.

[Bolshevik]

24 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

The Great Principle pops up in many places in the film class, and several places in the books.

But the phrase "absent Christ" occurs only once in the film class, and only once in the book.

 

Sounds like he had a priority.  Maybe GP was his "Wedge Doctrine" to give him access to others.

 

Christ being away was just a "Don’t worry . . . They're not gonna be home for days"

[Nathan_Jr]

33 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

The Great Principle pops up in many places in the film class, and several places in the books.

But the phrase "absent Christ" occurs only once in the film class, and only once in the book.

 

Asserted claims and fantastical musings pop up in many places in many books and many classes.

Sometimes, errors occur only once in books and classes.
 

 

[So_crates]

On 1/11/2023 at 4:44 PM, Mike said:

 

The Great Principle pops up in many places in the film class, and several places in the books.

But the phrase "absent Christ" occurs only once in the film class, and only once in the book.

 

Oh, really?!

So where are the places it says in the bibical text, "God can only give that which He is, which is Spirit."

Or is it you, like Saint Vic, reading something in the text that isn't there?

Everybody repeat after me: Add to the Word of God and you no longer have the Word of God.

 

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by So_crates

[Mike]

I'm a little bit embarrassed but a major bit elated at the way Raf ended the "Absent Christ" thread in an confusion piercing explosion of common sense.

I'm elated because he said what I had struggled several times and ways to say, and he did it MUCH more elegantly than I could have. 

I'm embarrassed that I didn't come up with it.  Just a little, though. The elation outshines it.

*/*/*/*/*

Raf's post reminded me of a dissimilar situation, but with some strong comonality.  It was regarding a MUCH DEBATED topic here for about 20 years here concerning PFAL page 83. 

As usual, everyone always said I was crazy about the grammar I was claiming was happening on that page.  This went on thread after thread, many times in 20 years, where page 83 was the big debate everyone was focused on for hours or days, or longer. 

Well, page 83 was raging again, about... maybe 8 months ago or more, and I asserted that I had asked language experts about page 83 and they agreed with me. Every one scoffed, and that is putting it gentlemanly terms.

Then late one night I was answering a post on page 83, again asserting that everyone should ask a language expert.  and Boom!  In comes.... dare I say it?   I could be wrong...  I could look it up...   but if memory serves me correct it was Nathan_Jr who suddenly showed up out of nowhere, and agrees with my grammar!  I don't think I had seen him post yet.

He said the grammar on that page did not need a language expert and it was disgusting that VPW would say on page 83 such a thing. 

Nathan_Jr was agreeing 100% with my grammar, but strongly disagreed that VPW had a right to say it.  But is is very strong in language technicalities.  He put all of rage against VPW into agreement with my grammar analysis.

I quietly gloated and never mentioned page 83 again. 

I don't think anyone brought it up after that again. 

If memory serves me it was crickets on page 83.

I think someone may have informed Nathan_Jr that he had upset 20 years of their dug-in position that page 83, and had sided with the enemy.  My mind picture of this was Steve Martin and John Candy woke up to discover they were intimately embracing in a cold bed. They all re-grouped to attack me again as if nothing happened.

These are the things the historians and digital archeologists will someday find and say "Well, lookee here.  This is interesting." 

*/*/*/*/*

I offered to back out of the Absent Christ thread, but no one seemed to notice. 

I think that Raf neatly wrapped it up.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Mike

[Mike]

I left a set of questions about ChatGPT in the Absent Christ thread. Anyone want to answer them here.  I want to let things settle there after Raf's intervention.

*/*/*/*/*

But while we're at it: 
Something I did not dare mention on the Absent Christ thread is that in my youth I looked at the verse that says Jesus past thru the heavens and thought "Hey!  That means he went faster than the speed of light, and my Relativity brain circuits start thinking Time Travel.  What if God took Jesus into the future on the day of the Ascension, and set him into his "return" at some future date?   That could mean that the absent Christ is nowhere now, but waiting for us in the future.

I pretty quickly figured out the the Bible does not teach anything about Time Travel, and I ditched the whole idea.

It was way too complicated to be truth.

 

[outandabout]

On 12/22/2022 at 6:11 PM, Bolshevik said:

 

Ask Mike to point to what color he feels?

 

[outandabout]

I copied the emotion graph and wanted to comment on how it made me aware of the wide range of emotions we as humans are capable of.  A little off topic but looking at it reminds me that we were taught not to feel them. I’m so glad I can claim my humanity and not feel condemnation that I am being earthly and leaning on sense knowledge when I feel what I feel.  
 

[outandabout]

This

Edited January 28, 2023 by outandabout

[OldSkool]

6 hours ago, Mike said:

I'm a little bit embarrassed but a major bit elated at the way Raf ended the "Absent Christ" thread in an confusion piercing explosion of common sense.

I'm elated because he said what I had struggled several times and ways to say, and he did it MUCH more elegantly than I could have. 

I'm embarrassed that I didn't come up with it.  Just a little, though. The elation outshines it.

*/*/*/*/*

Raf's post reminded me of a dissimilar situation, but with some strong comonality.  It was regarding a MUCH DEBATED topic here for about 20 years here concerning PFAL page 83. 

As usual, everyone always said I was crazy about the grammar I was claiming was happening on that page.  This went on thread after thread, many times in 20 years, where page 83 was the big debate everyone was focused on for hours or days, or longer. 

Well, page 83 was raging again, about... maybe 8 months ago or more, and I asserted that I had asked language experts about page 83 and they agreed with me. Every one scoffed, and that is putting it gentlemanly terms.

Then late one night I was answering a post on page 83, again asserting that everyone should ask a language expert.  and Boom!  In comes.... dare I say it?   I could be wrong...  I could look it up...   but if memory serves me correct it was Nathan_Jr who suddenly showed up out of nowhere, and agrees with my grammar!  I don't think I had seen him post yet.

He said the grammar on that page did not need a language expert and it was disgusting that VPW would say on page 83 such a thing. 

Nathan_Jr was agreeing 100% with my grammar, but strongly disagreed that VPW had a right to say it.  But is is very strong in language technicalities.  He put all of rage against VPW into agreement with my grammar analysis.

I quietly gloated and never mentioned page 83 again. 

I don't think anyone brought it up after that again. 

If memory serves me it was crickets on page 83.

I think someone may have informed Nathan_Jr that he had upset 20 years of their dug-in position that page 83, and had sided with the enemy.  My mind picture of this was Steve Martin and John Candy woke up to discover they were intimately embracing in a cold bed. They all re-grouped to attack me again as if nothing happened.

These are the things the historians and digital archeologists will someday find and say "Well, lookee here.  This is interesting." 

*/*/*/*/*

I offered to back out of the Absent Christ thread, but no one seemed to notice. 

I think that Raf neatly wrapped it up.

 

6 hours ago, Mike said:

I left a set of questions about ChatGPT in the Absent Christ thread. Anyone want to answer them here.  I want to let things settle there after Raf's intervention.

*/*/*/*/*

But while we're at it: 
Something I did not dare mention on the Absent Christ thread is that in my youth I looked at the verse that says Jesus past thru the heavens and thought "Hey!  That means he went faster than the speed of light, and my Relativity brain circuits start thinking Time Travel.  What if God took Jesus into the future on the day of the Ascension, and set him into his "return" at some future date?   That could mean that the absent Christ is nowhere now, but waiting for us in the future.

I pretty quickly figured out the the Bible does not teach anything about Time Travel, and I ditched the whole idea.

It was way too complicated to be truth.

 

There is nothing wrapped up. You just showed how petty you truly are to come over to another thread and assume some type of moral victory because Raf posted something that you agree with? What, is Raf the way corps type authority that just forbid discussion of a topic because it disagrees with the rightly divided words of wierwille? 

I wouldnt try and gloat if I were you:

14 hours ago, Raf said:

I'd like to reboot the thread, maybe make it a little less Mikish and a little more what were we talking about again?

 

Obviously, if Raf is making a thread a little less Mikish it isnt something thats happening in your favor....

 

Just because Raf joined the discussion doesn't mean its over or that we are now bullied into Raf's position because he is a moderator. This isnt the way international. But thanks for showing once again that you really are operating from a factional perspective and truly are petty betty with your gotcha bullshonta attitudes.